Lane Cove Council v Chami

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Lane Cove Council v Chami [2014] NSWLEC 3
Hearing dates:	31 January 2014
Decision date:	31 January 2014
Jurisdiction:	Class 4
Before:	Craig J
Decision:	Orders as set out at [7]
Catchwords:	EX PARTE APPLICATION - leave to serve short notice - motion for an interlocutory injunction - substituted service of documents appropriate
Cases Cited:	Lane Cove Council v Ross (No 14) [2013] NSWLEC 87
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	Lane Cove Council (Applicant) Sarab Chami (Respondent)
Representation:	N Eastman (Applicant) No appearance (Respondent) Pikes & Verekers Lawyers (Applicant) No appearance (Respondent)
File Number(s):	40044 of 2014

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. Premises known as 8 Bayview Street, Northwood (the premises) have achieved some notoriety in this Court. Building works carried out at those residential premises have been the subject of numerous decisions by Pepper J in a series of hearings involving Lane Cove Council and Raymond Ross. On 14 June 2013 orders were made by her Honour requiring significant demolition of works to be undertaken at the premises by Mr Ross (see Lane Cove Council v Ross (No 14) [2013] NSWLEC 87).

1. It appears that at about that time ownership of the premises formerly owned by Mr Ross changed. The current registered proprietor is said to be Sarab Chami.

1. There is before me today a Notice of Motion seeking a number of interlocutory orders leading ultimately to an application for interlocutory injunction said to be required by reason of unlawful building works being carried out at these premises allegedly by or under the direction of Sarab Chami. The present application before me does not involve the grant of interlocutory injunctions restraining building work but rather seeks leave to serve short notice of an application seeking such an order.

1. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Adrian Moore on 30 January 2014. Mr Moore is a Senior Building Surveyor employed by the Applicant Council. Mr Moore's affidavit is detailed and I do not recite for present purposes that detail. Suffice it is to note that on the basis of the evidence that he provides there is evidence suggestive of work being carried out at the premises by, or as I have said, at the direction of Ms Chami. Ms Chami, as owner, exercises control over the premises, evidenced by her vociferous attempts to exclude Mr Moore and other Council officers from entering upon the premises. It also seems that from time to time Ms Chami has been represented by a solicitor in the context of the dispute between the Council and Mr Ross.

1. The Notice of Motion with which I am asked to deal, requires both leave to commence forthwith proceedings seeking final relief relating to unlawful building work and, as I have indicated, foreshadows the seeking of interlocutory relief pending the final hearing of the proceedings. The latter application is a matter to be dealt with by the Duty Judge, the purpose of the present motion being…